Libertarians would stand by and watch someone die rather than help someone caught in a bad spot. I suppose if someone gets a flat tire and they need a jack you'd laugh and drive off?

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 4:42pm

I'm not sure what a gun has to do with this discussion, but your comment isn't in keeping with the way our country was founded...

@Phil, hate to break it to you but the government has the guns with a license to kill. And if you wish not to fund any government backed ideology (aka universal health care), the government will pursue you. If stand firm in defending your liberty and property, they will take away your right to life.  Why? Because someone you don't even know decided without your consent that you should be responsible for their lifestyle, employment and purchasing decisions.

 

I'm no republican, I'm no democrat. However, I respect democrats funding any of their precious ideological programs without using the government as their muscle.  The same goes for republicans. I for one support a multitude of programs financially and/or with my time.  But for me to say just because I think Wikipedia, Charity: water, Make a WishHabitat for Humanity are fantastic organizations built on ideologies that I believe in doesn't mean that I should be influencing a Goon such as the Government to force you in supporting them too.  Once you force ideologies upon others you go from charity to oppression. No matter how great your charity seems.

Our country has spent billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, but many of our politicians balk at spending tax revenue on the health and "general welfare" of our own citizens

Sorry but "You scratch my back, and I will scratch your back" politics is just adding to the chaos. Just because you allow republicans some of their oppressive programs (such as warmongering and foreign nation-building), in return for some of your oppressive programs to be passed seems to be based more on collusion and  than on fair governing principles.

Your Our taxes aren't just for things that only you want.  It's not fair to use our money to fund only conservative programs and not worry about anything else.

You are absolutely correct, it is not fair (or Just) to use "their" money for only conservative programs.  They shouldn't be for what I only want, they shouldn't be for what you only want either.  If Lady Justice wasn't wearing a blindfold, you'd see you are making her cry. Then again, without a blindfold she couldn't be lady justice. From Wikipedia:

The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.

Note the objectivity part I bolded and underlined. Ideologies are based on subjectivity. This is why Republicans support one set, and Democrats support another. Is it fair/just to force your subjective views on others? Universal health care does.

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 4:46pm

Again, I ask.  Can someone actually base a reasoning/premise for mandating universal health care?

Comment by Arcus on September 15, 2011 at 5:11pm

Well, Bismarck used the argument that it would avoid a violent overthrow of the government by disenfranchised workers ending in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Another long list of arguments can be found in a field of study called Health economics, but I guess having to open a textbook would be a lot to ask from libertarians.

For someone who either didn't pay attention or failed civics class, there's a lot of pretension of knowledge.

----

As a side note, the plans for the British NHS was dropped over Germany during the WW2 as propaganda. It was described to Hitler as "Far superior than ours in every way."

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 6:20pm

Well, Bismarck used the argument that it would avoid a violent overthrow of the government by disenfranchised workers ending in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Another long list of arguments can be found in a field of study called Health economics, but I guess having to open a textbook would be a lot to ask from libertarians.

For someone who either didn't pay attention or failed civics class, there's a lot of pretension of knowledge.

@Arcus, I'll sum this up. Your talking points are that you assume i failed or didn't pay attention in civics class. Wrong. I'm too lazy to open up a text book to learn for myself. Wrong. Who is being pretentious? Then your premise is that we should hearken to fear mongering of a foreign political leader that died one hundred years ago. Predicted on what objective evidence? Correct me if I am wrong, but is there one country that went into civil war based on health care reform? In my opinion using fear for public policy is a lazy, dishonest and manipulative. You know that "feeling" that has provoked our country into countless messes in the first place. Fear does not provoke critical thought, but supersedes it with our instinct of fight or flight. You should have learned this lesson from the theists.

 

I guess I am looking at this all wrong though. I did just find out that I failed civics and don't understand health economics.  It is the government's fault anyways, I now understand that i don't have responsibility for myself. I'll just join the ranks of free loaders and just turn to the almighty government god that with a wave of its magical wand we will no longer have to take personal responsibility for our lifestyles, education, commodities (ie health care), employment and thought.

Comment by Gaytor on September 15, 2011 at 7:06pm

Anonymous, I'm bothered by your freeloading of education. I'm bothered by your freeloading of FBI services, CIA, Military, Roads, National Parks, Fire Departments, EMS, Animal Control, etc etc etc. Freeloading. What a great argument. Offers to pay taxes for a service not only for myself but to cover others, and I'm a freeloader. Good one. 

From it's inception, this country wanted to care for others. I'll point it out again. We had socialized medicine for Mariners and required that the purchase it, even if the weren't from America. Link It has a historical basis and was instituted to protect the people's welfare.

Your position has no basis historically. You have no basis constitutionally as the general welfare is provided for. You have no basis morally as people are dying. The whole of your argument is to protect your money over life. We are a nation that has come together to form a "more perfect union" and your premise does not support that. You seek only what's good for Anonymous and hurl insults like "freeloaders" at those seeking to care for others. You suggest that with wanting to provide HC for others we want to take your free-thought. One doesn't follow the other. You've spend too many years listening to those influenced by McCarthy fear mongering and not looking at how healthcare is done in other countries. Tell me what is wrong with Germany or Japan's healthcare system and how ours is currently superior? Seriously. Give me a reason why ours is better for the population.

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 8:26pm

@Gaytor @Kris and @Arkus,

I would love to carry this debate, you have challenged me in the way I think in many ways. But I think I nailed the base premise. And to continue this conversation I have to first ask you this question.

 

Who is responsible for my choices?

My answer: Only me.

Comment by Arcus on September 16, 2011 at 2:30am

@Anon: Let me counter some of your previous statements.

"the government has the guns with a license to kill."

It's called a monopoly on violence and is essential to modern statecraft. It's essential to state legitimacy.

"And if you wish not to fund any government backed ideology (aka universal health care), the government will pursue you."

Of course. If you don't support the democratic process of decision making you are an enemy of the state. If you do not pay taxes you are a criminal.

"If stand firm in defending your liberty and property, they will take away your right to life"

No, they won't. If you challenge the state's legitimacy you will be pursued.

"Why?"

Asking and answering you own question makes you seem like a dolt..

"Because someone you don't even know decided without your consent that you should be responsible for their lifestyle, employment and purchasing decisions."

Again, it's called the democratic process. The majority rules whether you like it or not.

That is very basic civics, and you completely ignored it in your diatribe.

---------

As for you call for "rational arguments for healthcare" I can pull one from the Austrian school economics which Libertarians so often identify with:

Austrians deny the concept of the rational economic actor (homo economicus) of the mainstream schools. Thus, since humans have a penchant for acting irrationally, a rational argument would be to avoid this irrational behavior when it comes to healthcare since it carries with it both direct costs to the actor as well as larger costs to society.

Comment by Anonymous on September 16, 2011 at 9:40am

@Arcus, You completely avoided the question.

Comment by Brady on September 16, 2011 at 10:33am

@anonymous You should just give it up already. You are arguing with people that have an ideology that believe their way of life is superior and they know what is best for all people. Even if that means protecting people from themselves. They feel more government influence, if done to their standards, would provide for the better support of all humanity. You can't use logical rational arguments with people that are emotionally tied to their beliefs. You should know this by being an atheist.

Comment by Anonymous on September 16, 2011 at 11:11am

@Brady,

I'm assuming you answer my question the same as me.  There is a fair chance I could be completely wrong, but I am hypothesizing that getting others to honestly answer the simple question,

Who is responsible for my choices?

will allow for a more open and honest debate. If one answer's "me", then I think I can use accepted rules of logic and debate to show that health care is an issue of personal responsibility. It allows for common ground to be accepted and established so that we can get past a cursory level.

 

I would be very perplexed yet intrigued if the answer included any entity more than "me". If it is different, then it shows we aren't arguing on common ground which is necessary for an honest debate.  We would then need to take a few steps back from that premise to determine reasoning for another answer.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service